Cell phone tower proposed for Latoria Road
Posted by Steven Hurdle on August 1, 2008
A member of CAUSE (Citizens Against Unafe Emissions) contacted me to inform me that Bell Mobility has submitted an application for a cell phone tower for 709 Latoria on the Langford side of Triangle Mountain. It appears to be on the section of Latoria between Desmond Pl. and Kelly Dawn Road. The proposed tower is slated to be 29 metres with multiple antennae on it.
City Hall, when questioned by CAUSE, indicated that it’s an Industry Canada decision and they have no role in the process. That used to be true, but there has reportedly been a change in policy at Industry Canada (the federal government agency responsible for overseeing cell phone regulations, among many other electronics and communications technologies). Industry Canada now claims that when civic government requires it that they do consultation further from a proposed communication tower than their standard policy would otherwise require (perhaps as far as a kilometre away from the cell site, as opposed to within as little as 30 metres of the tower). Industry Canada still reserves the right to make the final decision, but this policy of improving consultation is a step in the right direction, when muncipalities take advantage of it. Not having such a policy of requiring Industry Canada to go further afield in their consultation means an opportunity for many in our community to have input into proposed cell sites is being lost.
Despite the lack of unanimity about whether cell phones and cell sites are a health risk or not, any opportunity for community concerns to be heard should be taken advantage of. This is especially true when it’s proposed for an area like this, where there are residents living in the vicinity.
I must admit to being conflicted on this issue, as I’ve been a user of wireless technologies for ten years, and a lot of research has concluded that there are no health risks associated with them. However, there are those (some of them inside the scientific and medical communities) who are concerned, and I was surprised at some of the things I heard when I went to the recent public meeting CAUSE held. Concerns in some areas have become so great that planned WiFi networks have been scrapped (such as Sebastopol California), and in some cases existing WiFi networks have actually been turned off (such as several libraries in Paris), concerns that will present a challenge for our muncipality if bourne out.
CAUSE has passed on the following info, and I am passing it on verbatim for those who are interested. For those who are concerned, I would certainly recommend having your say prior to the August 13th deadline.
One detail of note, not contained in the CAUSE release, is that Bell Mobility already has coverage in the area. Bell and Telus entered into a reciprocal roaming agreement several years ago, and Bell users in many parts of BC and Alberta use Telus’ wireless network, often without even realising it and without paying any kind of a surcharge. Bell Mobility only places cell sites in areas where the wireless traffic is high enough that it’s cheaper to install their own cell site than to pay for their customers to access Telus’ nearby site(s). So even if this request for a new site placement is denied, while it could potentially have a financial implication for Bell Mobility it is not going to affect wireless coverage for Bell’s cell phone customers.
– Steven Hurdle -
I now have some details about the proposed cell tower for Latoria between Desmond Pl. and Kelly Dawn. Bell Mobility is planning on building a 29meter tower with multiple cell antennae (they do not say how many) in a residential area. This is technically in Langford, but will directly radiate many residents in Colwood. Langford has refused to implement bylaws requiring consultation before towers are built or transmitters installed, so Industry Canada is required to informed only those people living within 3 tower lengths (eg. 87 meters).
There are many scientific studies, and have been for years, by credible researchers, including Dr. Magda Havas, which show that radiation from cell towers is very dangerous for up to 400 meters. Industry Canada now requires that all future transmitters be installed, where possible, on existing structures, so that no notice is required before installation. That means if this tower is allowed to be built, there will be many antennae on it — an antenna farm is even more dangerous as the power compounds.
This tower must be stopped and you have until Aug. 13 to register your protest in writing. Please write to:
Industry Canada: vancouver.district@ic.gc.ca
Minister of Industry Jim Prentice : minister.industry@ic.gc.ca
Deputy Min. of Industry Canada Richard Dicerni: dicerni.richard@ic.gc.ca
Asst. Deputy Min. of IC: Kevin Lindsey: lindsey.kevin@ic.gc.ca
Bell Mobility: Shawna Heming: shawna.heming@bell.ca
Keith Martin, MP: martik1@parl.gc.ca
Matthew Baldwin, Langford: mbaldwin@cityoflangford.caPlease provide your name and address, and your demand that cell towers not be put into residential neighbourhoods, and that this one not be put on Latoria. YOU MUST WRITE BEFORE AUGUST 13
Your neighbours will be having a petition protesting this tower. Please sign.
Even if you are not directly affected by this tower, you need to support this movement. If this is allowed, all neighbourhoods are targets. Let’s work together to protect each other. Your neighbourhood could be next.
Sharon Noble
Tammy Jeske said
We do not need any more towers in this area, in fact we want the ones on Triangle moved as it is ! If Bell isn`t satified with its billions and wants to save more money by having their own antennae – too bad, we don`t care !
Carol Brown said
Cell phone towers should not be constructed in populated areas. We need the existing cell phone towers removed off Triangle Mountain.
John Lovelace said
I’m not sure what the opposition is to the cell towers. Well besides the obvious, they are very hard to make look pretty.
My observation here is that at least a few of these towers were in place before many of these residential developments we’re even concieved of.
While I agree that more cell towers is not good, who is going to pay to have the existing ones moved. Certainly not the owner of the towers. I guess that leaves the taxpayer of Langford.
I’m a bit leary of that idea as I’m a little concerned that in years to come will have other bills to pay off. Like weirdly financed overpasses and such.
John L. said
If you want to say that bell is making enough money of it’s subscribers in this area that’s fine. But, I don’t think that wrapping that up in the veil that’s its some vast health or environmental hazard it the right thing at all.
I think there are more important hazard our communities need to worry about.